(Reply by N. Lenin to Rosa Luxemburg) One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Reply by N. Lenin to Rosa Luxemburg[5]

Written:Written in the latter half of September 1904Published:First published in 1930 inLenin Miscellany XV.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      publisher??,pubdate??,

      Moscow,Volume 7,

      pages474-485.Translated:Fineberg AbrahamTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2002).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

ComradeRosa Luxemburg’s article in Nos. 42 and 43 of theNeue Zeitis a criticism of my Russian book on the
	crisis in our

				Party.[1]I cannot but thank our German
      comrades for their attention to our Party literature and their
      attempts to acquaint German Social-Democrats with it, but I must
      point out that Rosa Luxemburg’sNeue Zeitarticle does
      not acquaint the reader with my book, but with something
      else. This may be seen from the following instances. Comrade
      Luxemburg says, for example, that my book is a clear and
      detailed expression of the point of view of “intransigent
      centralism”. Comrade Luxemburg thus supposes that I defend
      one system of organisation against another. But actually that is
      not so. From the first to the last page of my book, I defend the
      elementary principles of any conceivable system of party
      organisation: My book is not concerned with the difference
      between one system of organisation and another, but with how
      any system is to be maintained, criticised, and rectified in a
      manner consistent with the party idea. Rosa Luxemburg further
      says that “according to his [Lenin’s] conception, the
      Central Committee has the right to organise all the local Party
      committees”. Actually that is not so. What my views on
      this subject are can be documentarily proved by the draft Rules
      of Party Organisation which I proposed. In that draft there is
      nothing about any right to organise the local committees. That
      right was introduced into the Party Rules by the commission
      elected by the Party Congress to frame them, and the Congress

      adopted the commission’s text. But besides myself and one other
      majority adherent, the commission included three members of the
      Congress minority, so that in this commission which gave the
      Central Committee the right to organise the local committees, it
      was my opponents that had the upper hand. Comrade Luxemburg has
      confused two different things. In the first place, she has
      confused my organisational draft with the modified draft of the
      commission and with the Rules of Organisation as actually
      adopted by the Congress; secondly, she has confused the defence
      of a specific point relating to a specific clause of the Rules
      (in that defence I was by no means intransigent, for I did not
      object at the plenary session to the amendment made by the
      commission) with the defence of the thesis (truly
      “ultra-centralist”, is it not?) that Rules adopted
      by a Party congress must be adhered to until amended by a
      subsequent congress. This thesis (a “purely
      Blanquist” one, as the reader may readily observe) I did
      indeed defend in my book quite
      “intransigently”. Comrade Luxemburg says that in my
      view “the
      Central Committee is the only active nucleus of the
      Party”. Actually that is not so. I have never advocated
      any such view. On the contrary, my opponents (the Second Party
      Congress minority) charged in their writings that I did not
      sufficiently uphold the independence of the Central Committee,
      that I made it too subordinate to the editorial board of the
      Central Organ and the Party Council, bodies located abroad. To
      these charges I replied in my book that when the Party majority
      had the upper hand in the Party Council, the latter never made
      any attempt to interfere with the Central Committee’s
      independence, but that when the Party council became a weapon of
      the minority, this did immediately hap pen. Comrade Rosa
      Luxemburg says that there are no two opinions among the Russian
      Social-Democrats as to the need for a united party, and that the
      whole controversy is over the degree of centralisation. Actually
      that is not so. If Comrade Luxemburg had taken the trouble to
      acquaint her self with the resolutions of the many local Party
      committees that constitute the majority, she would readily have
      seen (which incidentally is also clear from my book) that our
      controversy has principally been over whether the Central
      Committee and Central Organ should represent the trend ofthe majority of the Party Congress, or whether they should
      not. About this “ultra-centralist” and “purely
      Blanquist” demand the worthy comrade says not a word, she
      prefers to declaim against mechanical subordination of the part
      to the whole, against slavish submission, blind obedience, and
      other such bogeys. I am very grateful to Comrade Luxemburg for
      explaining the profound idea that slavish submission is very
      harmful to the Party, but I should like to know: does the
      comrade consider it normal for supposed party central
      institutions to be dominated by the minority of the Party
      Congress?—can she imagine such a thing?—has she ever
      seen it in any party? Comrade Luxemburg fathers on me the idea
      that all the conditions already exist in Russia for forming a
      large and extremely centralised workers’ party. Again an error
      of fact. Nowhere in my book did I voice such an idea, let alone
      advocate it. The thesis I advanced expressed and expresses
      something else: I insisted, namely, that all the conditions
      already existed for expecting Party Congress decisions to be
      observed, and that the time was past when a Party institution
      could be supplanted by a private circle. I brought proof that
      certain academics in our Party had shown themselves inconsistent
      and unstable, and that they had no right to lay the blame for
      their own lack of discipline upon the Russian proletarians. The
      Russian workers have already pronounced repeatedly, on various
      occasions, for observance of the Party Congress decisions. It is
      nothing short of laughable when Comrade Luxemburg proclaims such
      a view “optimistic” (should it not rather be
      considered “pessimistic”?) without uttering a single word
      about
      the factual basis of my thesis. Comrade Luxemburg declares that
      I glorify the educational influence of the factory. That is not
      so. It was my opponent, not I, who said that I pictured the
      Party as a factory. I properly ridiculed him and proved with his
      own words that he confused two different aspects of factory
      discipline, which, unfortunately, is the case with Comrade
      Luxemburg

      too.[2]

ComradeLuxemburg says that I characterised my stand point more
      acutely, perhaps, than any of my opponents couldhave done when I defined a revolutionary Social-Democrat as a
      Jacobin who has identified himself with the organisation of the
      class-conscious workers. Yet another error of fact. It was
      P. Axelrod, not I, who first started talking about
      Jacobinism. He was the first to liken our Party trends to those
      of the days of the great French Revolution. I merely observed
      that the parallel could only be allowed in the sense that the
      division of present-day Social-Democracy into a revolutionary
      and an opportunist wing corresponded to some extent to the
      division into Montagnards and Girondists. The oldIskra, which the Party Congress endorsed, often drew
      such a parallel. Just because it recognised this division, the
      oldIskrafought against the opportunist wing in our
      Party, against theRabocheye Dyelotrend. Rosa
      Luxemburg here confusescomparisonof the two
      revolutionary
      trends of the eighteenth and the twentieth century with
      identification of those trends. If I say, for example, that the
      Jungfrau stands in the same relation to the Little Scheidegg as a
      house of four storeys to one of two, that does not mean I
      identify a four-storey house with the Jungfrau. Comrade
      Luxemburg leaves completely out of sight the factual analysis of
      the different trends in our Party. Yet the greater half of my book
      is devoted precisely to this analysis, based on the minutes of
      our Party Congress, and in the preface I call special attention
      to the fact. Rosa Luxemburg sets out to talk about the present
      position in our Party while totally ignoring our Congress, which
      was what really laid our Party’s foundation. A rash enterprise,
      it has to be said!  Particularly since I point out a hundred
      times in my book that my opponents ignore our Party Congress and
      by so doing leave all their assertions devoid of all foundation
      of fact.

ComradeLuxemburg commits exactly the same basic error. She
      repeats naked words without troubling to grasp their concrete
      meaning. She raises bogeys without informing herself of the
      actual issue in the controversy. She puts in my mouth
      commonplaces, general principles and conceptions, absolute
      truths, and tries to pass over the relative truths, pertaining
      to perfectly definite facts, with which alone I operate. And
      then she rails against set formulas and invokes the dialectics
      of Marx! It is the worthy comrade’s own article that consists of
      nothing but manufacturedformulas and runs counter to the ABC of dialectics. This ABC
      tells us that there is no such thing as abstract truth, truth is
      always concrete. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg loftily ignores the
      concrete facts of our Party struggle and engages in
      grandiloquent declamation about matters which it is impossible
      to discuss seriously. Let me cite one last example from Comrade
      Luxemburg’s second article. She quotes my remark that the way
      the Rules of Organisation are formulated can make them a more or
      a less trenchant weapon against

			     opportunism.[3]Just what
      formulations I talked about in my book and all of us talked
      about at the Congress, of that she does not say a word. What the
      controversy at the Party Congress was, and against whom I
      advanced my theses, she does not touch on in the
      slightest. Instead, she favours me with a whole lecture on
      opportunism ... in the parliamentary countries!! But about the
      peculiar, specific varieties of opportunism in Russia, the
      shades which it has taken on there and with which my book is
      concerned, we find not a word in her article. The upshot of all
      these very brilliant arguments is:

      “Party Rules are not meant in themselves [?? understand
      this who can!] to be a weapon of resistance to opportunism, but
      only an outward instrument for exerting the dominant influence
      of the actually existing revolutionary-proletarian majority of
      the Party.” Quite so. But how this actually existing majority
      of our Party was formed Rosa Luxemburg does not say, yet that is
      exactly what I talk about in my book. Nor does she say what
      influence it was that Plekhanov and I defended with the help of
      this outward instrument. I can only add that never and nowhere
      have I talked such nonsense as that the Party Rules are a weapon
      “in themselves”.

Thebest way to answer this kind of presentation of my views will be
      to set forth the concrete facts of our Party struggle. Anyone will
      then be able to see how ill Comrade Luxemburg’s abstract commonplaces
      and formulas sort with the concrete facts.

OurParty was founded in Russia in the spring of l898 at a congress
      of representatives of several Russian organisations. It was named the
      Russian Social-Democratic LabourParty,Rabochaya

	Gazeta[6]was made the Central Organ, and the
      Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad became the Party’s
      foreign representative. Very soon after the congress, the
      Central Committee of the Party was arrested.Rabochaya
      Gazetahad to cease publication after its second issue. The
      whole Party became a shapeless conglomeration of local Party
      organisations (known as committees). The only bond between these
      local committees was an ideological, purely spiritual one. A
      period of disunity, vacillation, and splits was bound to set in
      again. The intellectuals, who in our Party made up a much larger
      percentage than in the West-European parties, had taken up
      Marxism as a new vogue. This vogue very soon gave place to
      slavish acceptance of the bourgeois criticism of Marx, on the
      one hand, and an infatuation for a purely trade-unionist labour
      movement (strike-ism—Economism), on the other. The
      divergence between the intellectual-opportunist and proletarian-
      revolutionary trends led to a split in the Union Abroad. The
      newspaperRabochaya Mysl, and the RabocheyeDyelomagazine published abroad, expressed (the latter
      in somewhat lesser degree) the standpoint of Economism, they
      belittled the importance of political struggle and denied the
      existence of a bourgeois-democratic element in Russia. The
      “legal” critics of Marx—Messrs. Struve,
      Tugan-Baranovsky, Bulgakov, Berdyaev, and the rest—swung
      all the way to the Right. Nowhere in Europe do we find
      Bernsteinism arriving so speedily at its logical
      consummation—the formation of a liberal group—as was
      the case in Russia. There, Mr. Struve began with
      “criticism” in the name of Bernsteinism and ended by
      setting up the liberal magazineOsvobozhdeniye, liberal
      in the European sense of the term. Plekhanov and his friends,
      who broke away from the Union Abroad, met with support from the
      founders ofIskraandZarya.These two
      publications waged (even Comrade Luxemburg has heard something
      about that) a “brilliant three-year campaign” against the
      opportunist wing of the Party, a campaign of the Social
      Democratic “Mountain” against the Social-Democratic
      “Gironde” (the expression belongs to the oldIskra), a campaign againstRabocheye Dyelo(Comrades Krichevsky, Akimov, Martynov, and others), against the
      Jewish Bund, against the organisations in Russia that eagerly
      espoused this trend(notably the St. Petersburg so-called Workers’ Organisation and the
      Voronezh Committee).

Itbecame more and more obvious that the purely ideological
      bond between the committees was not enough. The need to create a
      really united party, that is, to effect what was only
      foreshadowed in 1898, asserted itself more and more
      insistently. Finally, at the end of 1902 an Organising Committee
      was formed to convene the Second Party Congress. This
      Organising Committee, which was largely set up by theIskraorganisation in Russia, also included a
      representative of the Jewish Bund. In the autumn of 1903 the
      Second Congress was at last held; it ended, on the one hand, in
      the Party’s formal unification, and on the other, in a split
      into “majority” and “minority”. That
      division did not exist before the Congress. Only a detailed
      analysis of the struggle at the Congress can explain this
      division. Unfortunately, the sup porters of the minority
      (including Comrade Luxemburg) shy away fearfully from any such
      analysis.

Inmy book, presented to the German reader by Comrade Luxemburg in
      such a singular manner, I devote over a hundred pages to a close
      study of the Congress minutes (which make up a volume of some 400
      pages). This analysis caused me to divide the delegates, or rather
      votes (we had delegates with one vote and with two), into four main
      groups:
      1) majorityIskra-ists (adherents of the trend of the oldIskra) —twenty-four votes;
2) minority
      Iskra-ists—nine votes;
3) “Centre” (also referred
      to ironically as the “Marsh”)—ten votes; and, lastly,
      4) anti-Iskra-ists—eight votes, making fifty-one votes in
      all. I analyse the part played by these groups inallthe
      voting at the Congress, and prove that on all issues (of programme,
      of tactics, and of organisation) the Congress was an arena of
      struggle between theIskra-ists and the anti-Iskra-ists,
      with the “Marsh” making various zigzags. Anyone even
      slightly familiar with our Party’s history is bound to see that it
      could not have been other wise. But all supporters of the minority
      (including Rosa Luxemburg) modestly close their eyes to this
      struggle. Why? Because this struggle makes manifest the utter
      falsity of the minority’s present political position. Throughout
      the struggle at the Party Congress, on dozens of questions, in
      dozens of votes, theIskra-ists fought the anti-Iskra-istsand the “Marsh”, which sided the more definitely
      with the anti-Iskra-ists, the more concrete the matter at issue,
      the more positively it affected the fundamentals of Social-
      Democratic activity, the more tangibly it involved putting into
      practice the oldIskra’slong-standing plans. The anti-Iskra-ists (particularly Comrade Akimov and the
      St. Petersburg Workers’ Organisation delegate, Comrade
      Brouck re, who always agreed with him, and nearly always Comrade
      Martynov and the five delegates of the Jewish Bund) were against
      recognising the trend of the oldIskra.They defended
      the old separate organisations and voted against their
      subordination to the Party, their fusion into the Party (the
      Organising Committee incident, the dissolution of theYuzhny
      Rabochygroup—the leading group of the
      “Marsh”, and so on). They fought against
      centralistic Rules of Organisation (14th sitting of the
      Congress) and accusedalltheIskra-ists at
      that time of wanting to introduce “organised
      distrust”, “emergency laws”, and other such
      horrors.AlltheIskra-ists, without
      exception, laughed at it then; it is remarkable that Comrade
      Rosa Luxemburg should now take these bogeys seriously. On the
      great majority of questions theIskra-ists carried the
      day; they predominated at the Congress, as is clear from the
      figures given above. But during the second half of the Congress,
      when less fundamental issues were being decided, the
      anti-Iskra-ists had the better of it—some of theIskra-ists voted with them. That was the case, for
      example, with regard to proclaiming equality to all languages
      in our programme; on this point the anti-Iskra-ists nearly
      succeeded in defeating the Programme Committee and getting their
      formulation carried. It was also the case over Paragraph I of
      the Rules, when the antiIskra-ists and the
      “Marsh” put through Martov’s formulation. According
      to this formulation, Party members are not only those who belong
      to Party organisations (the formulation defended by Plekhanov
      and myself), but also all persons working under the control of
      Party

 organisations.[4]

Thesame thing happened in the elections to the Central
      Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ. The
      compact majority consisted of 24Iskra-ists, and they
      put through the long since planned reconstitution of the
      editorial board; of the six former editors, three were
      elected. The minority consisted of nineIskra-ists, ten
      members of the “Centre”, and one anti-Iskra-ist (the
      other seven antiIskra-ists, representing the Jewish
      Bund andRabocheye Dyelo, had withdrawn from the
      Congress by then). This minority was so displeased with the
      elections that it decided to take no part in the rest of the
      elections. Comrade Kautsky was quite right when he said that the
      reconstitution of the editorial board was the main cause of the
      struggle that followed. But his view that I(sic!)
      “expelled” three comrades from the editorial board
      can only be attributed to his being totally uninformed about our
      Congress. In the first place, non-election is far from the same
      thing as expulsion, and I certainly had no power at the Congress
      to expel anyone; and secondly, Comrade Kautsky seems to have no
      inkling that the fact of a coalition between the
      anti-Iskra-ists,the “Centre”, and a small section of
      theIskraadherents had political implications too and
      could not fail to influence the outcome of the elections. Anyone
      who does not wilfully close his eyes to what happened at our
      Congress is bound to see that our new division into minority and
      majority is only a variant of the old division into a
      proletarian-revolutionary and an intellectual-opportunist wing
      of our Party. That is a fact, and there is no explaining or
      laughing it away.

Unfortunately,after the Congress the principles involved in this
      division were obscured by squabbling over co-optation: the minority
      would not work under the control of the central institutions unless
      the three ex-editors were again co-opted. This fight went on for two
      months. The weapons used were boycott and disruption of the
      Party. Twelve committees (out of the fourteen that spoke out on the
      subject) severely condemned these methods of struggle. The minority
      would not even accept the proposal, madeby Plekhanov and myself, that they should set forth their point
      of view inIskra.At the Congress of the League Abroad
      the thing was carried to the length of showering the members of
      the central bodies with personal insults and abuse (autocrats,
      bureaucrats, gendarmes, liars, etc., etc.). They were accused of
      suppressing individual initiative and wanting to introduce
      slavish submission, blind obedience, and so on. Plekhanov’s
      attempts to characterise these minority methods of struggle as
      anarchistic did not avail. After this Congress Plekhanov came
      out with his epoch-making article against me, “What Should
      Not Be Done” (in No. 52 ofIskra).In this
      article he said that fighting revisionism did not necessarily
      mean fighting the revisionists; and it was clear to all that he
      was referring to our minority. He further said that one should
      not always fight the anarchistic individualism so deeply
      ingrained in the Russian revolutionary, that at times some
      concessions were a better way to subdue it and avoid a split. I
      resigned from the editorial board as I could not share this
      view, and the minority editors were co-opted. Then followed a
      fight for co-optation to the Central Committee. My offer to
      conclude peace on the basis of the minority keeping the Central
      Organ and the majority the Central Committee was rejected. The
      fight went on, they were fighting “on principle”
      against bureaucracy, ultra-centralism, formalism, Jacobinism,
      Schweitzerism (I was dubbed a Russian Schweitzer), and other
      such bogeys. I ridiculed all these accusations in my book and
      pointed out that they were either just a matter of squabbling
      about co-optation, or (if they were to be recognised,
      conditionally, as involving “principles”) nothing but
      opportunist, Girondist phrases. The present minority are only
      repeating what Comrade Akimov and other acknowledged
      opportunists said at our Congress against the centralism of all
      the adherents of the oldIskra.

Thecommittees in Russia were outraged at the conversion of the
      Central Organ into the organ of a private circle, an organ of
      co-optation squabbling and Party scandal. A number of
      resolutions expressing the severest censure vere passed. Only
      the so-called St. Petersburg Workers’ Organisation already
      mentioned and the Voronezh Committee (both of them supporters of
      Comrade Akimov’s trend)pronounced their satisfactionin principleat the trend of
      the newIskra.Demands to have the Third Party Congress
      summoned became ever more numerous.

Thereader who takes the trouble to make a first-hand study of
      the struggle in our Party will readily see that, concretely and
      practically, Comrade Rosa Luxemburg’s talk about
      “ultra-centralism”, about the need for
      centralisation to be gradual, and the like, is a mockery of our
      Congress, while abstractly and theoretically (if one can speak
      here of theory at all) it is nothing but a vulgarisation of
      Marxism, a perversion of true Marxian dialectics, etc.

Thelatest phase in our Party struggle is marked by the fact
      that the majority members have in part been ousted from the
      Central Committee, in part rendered useless, reduced to
      nonentities. (This happened owing to changes in the Central
      Committee’s

 composition,[7]etc.)  The Party Council
      (which after the co-optation of the old editors like wise fell
      into the minority’s hands) and the present Central Committee
      have condemned all agitation for ummoning the Third Congress
      and are taking the path of personal deals and negotiations with
      some members of the minority. Organisations which dared to
      commit such a crime as to agitate for a congress—as for
      instance a certain agent body of the Central
      Committee—have been

 dissolved.[8]A campaign
      against the summoning of the Third Congress has been pro claimed
      by the Party Council and the new Central Committee all along the
      line. The majority have replied with the slogan “Down with
      Bonapartism!"(that is the title of a
      pamphlet by Comrade

 Galyorka,[9]who speaks for the
      majority). More and more resolutions are being passed declaring
      that Party institutions which fight against a congress are
      anti-Party and Bonapartist. How hypocritical was all the
      minority’s talk against ultra-centralism and in favour of
      autonomy is obvious from the fact that a new majority publishing
      house started by myself and another comrade (which issued the
      above-named pamphlet by Comrade Galyorka and some others) has
      been declared outside the

 Party.[10]This new
      publishing house affords the majority their only opportunity of
      propagating their views, for the columns ofIskraare
      as good as closed to them. Yet—or rather just because of
      it—the Party Council has made the above ruling, on the
      purelyformal grounds that our publishing house has not been authorised by
      any Party organisation.

Itneed hardly be said how greatly positive work has been neglected,
      how greatly the prestige of Social-Democracy has suffered, how greatly
      the whole Party is demoralised by this nullification of all the
      decisions, all the elections made by the Second Congress, and this
      fight which Party institutions accountable to the Party are waging
      against the convening of the Third Congress.

[1]One Step Forward, Two StepsBack—pp. 203-425 of this
volume.—Ed.

[2]Cf. the Russian pamphletOur
Misunderstandings, the article"Rosa Luxemburg vs. Karl
      Marx”.—Lenin

[3]See p. 273 of this volume.—Ed.

[4]Comrade Kautsky has sided with Martov’s formulation, and the
      argument he pleads is expediency. In the first place, at our Party
      Congress this point was not discussed from the standpoint of
      expediency, but of principle. That was the way the question was
      put by
      Axel rod. Secondly, Comrade Kautsky is mistaken if he thinks that
      underthe Russian police regime there is such a big difference between
      belonging to a Party organisation and simply working under its
      control. Thirdly, it is particularly misleading to compare the
      position in Russia today to that in Germany under the Anti-Socialist

      Law.[11]—Lenin

[5]This article, written in reply to Rosa Luxemburg’s article “Organ
      isational Issues in the Russian Social-Democratic Movement”, was sent
      to Kautsky for publication in the German Social Democratic journalNeue
      Zeit, but Kautsky would not print it.

[6]Rabochaya Gazeta(Workers’ Gazette) was an illegal
      paper published
      in 1897 by the Kiev group of Social-Democrats. Two issuesappeared: No. 1 in August and No. 2 in December (dated November). The First
      Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. adoptedRabochaya Gazetaas the official
      organ of the Party, but the paper had to cease publication as a result of a
      police raid on the printing press and the arrest of the Central
      Committee. Concerning attempts to resume publication in 1899, see present
      edition, Vol. 4, pp. 207-09.

[11]TheAnti-Socialist Lawin Germany was promulgated in 1878. It
      suppressed all organisations of the Social-Democratic Party, mass
      working-class organisations, and the labour press; socialist literature was
      confiscated, and many Social-Democrats were de ported. The law was annulled
      in 1890 under pressure of the mass
      working-class movement.

[7]The members elected to the Central Committee at the Second Party Congress
      were Lengnik, Krzhizhanovsky, and Noskov. In October (New Style) 1903,
      Zemlyachka, Krasin, Essen, and Gusarov were co-opted; in November, Lenin and
      Galperin were coopted. In July- September 1904 further changes took place in
      the Central Commit tee’s composition: Lengnik and Essen—supporters of
      Lenin—were arrested; the conciliators Krzhizhanovsky and Gusarov
      resigned; over Lenin’s protests, the conciliators Krasin, Noskov, and Galpe
      rin unlawfully ousted the majority adherent Zemlyachka and co opted three
      conciliators: Lyubimov, Karpov, and Dubrovinoky. As a result of these
      changes, the majority oft he Central Committee now consisted of
      conciliators.

[8]Lenin is referring to the Central Committee’s decision to dissolve its
      Southern Bureau, which had been agitating for the convening
      of the Third Party Congress.

[9]Galyorka—pseudOnym of the Bolshevik M. S. Olminsky (Alexandrov).

[10]This refers to
      the Bonch-Bruyevich and Lenin Publishing House of Social-Democratic Party
      Literature, started by the Bolsheviks after the Menshevik editors ofIskraclosed the columns of the paper to them and refused to print
      statements by Party oi anisations and members upholdimog the Second Party
      Congress decisions and demanding the convening of the Third Congress. It
      issued a number of pamphlets directed against the Mensheviks and
      conciliators: Lenin,The Zemstvo Campaign and “Iskra’s”
      Plan;Galyorka,Down with Bonapartism!;Orlovsky,The
      Council Against the Party, and others.